Stennis was honored in this way because as chairman of the Senate Armed Forces Committee he did more than any other single person to fund the building and maintaining of the U.S military over a couple of generations. At that time a strong military was viewed as a positive.
Remember: Abraham Lincoln was a segregationist, or at least a white supremacist.
You all do love dredging that nonsense up, don't you? But you overlook, as usual, a major difference.
Yes, by the standards of today Lincoln would be considered a racist, a white supremacist, a segregationist. But by the standards of his days his positions towards slavery and blacks were pretty advanced. Unlike your southern heroes, Lincoln opposed slavery. Unlike your southern heroes, Lincoln believed that black men and women were entitled to the same fundamental rights that white men were. Unlike your southern heroes, Lincoln promoted votes for some black men. Did he support unfettered integration of the races? No, because he also knew that the bulk of America wasn't ready for it. But compared to the day his beliefs were pretty liberal.
John Stennis, on the other hand, was by the standards of his times a racist and segregationist. He vigorously opposed the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Civil Rights Act of 1968; he signed the Southern Manifesto of 1956, supporting filibuster tactics to block or delay passage in all cases; he opposed the Martin Luther King holiday. So his is not a case where he is being judged by the standards of today.
Having said that, then about the only thing I find more ridiculous than your argument on Lincoln is this whole idea of purging uncomfortable aspects of our history. Was Stennis a bigot? Yes. Did he perform admirable acts for our country in other areas? Yes. Did he deserve to have an aircraft carrier named for him? Debatable, but one was named for him so leave it as it is. Same with the other ships. Same with the Army forts.
You all do love dredging that nonsense up, don't you? But you overlook, as usual, a major difference.
Yes, by the standards of today Lincoln would be considered a racist, a white supremacist, a segregationist. But by the standards of his days his positions towards slavery and blacks were pretty advanced. Unlike your southern heroes, Lincoln opposed slavery. Unlike your southern heroes, Lincoln believed that black men and women were entitled to the same fundamental rights that white men were. Unlike your southern heroes, Lincoln promoted votes for some black men. Did he support unfettered integration of the races? No, because he also knew that the bulk of America wasn't ready for it. But compared to the day his beliefs were pretty liberal.
John Stennis, on the other hand, was by the standards of his times a racist and segregationist. He vigorously opposed the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Civil Rights Act of 1968; he signed the Southern Manifesto of 1956, supporting filibuster tactics to block or delay passage in all cases; he opposed the Martin Luther King holiday. So his is not a case where he is being judged by the standards of today.
Having said that, then about the only thing I find more ridiculous than your argument on Lincoln is this whole idea of purging uncomfortable aspects of our history. Was Stennis a bigot? Yes. Did he perform admirable acts for our country in other areas? Yes. Did he deserve to have an aircraft carrier named for him? Debatable, but one was named for him so leave it as it is. Same with the other ships. Same with the Army forts.